It’s frustrating because this government didn’t make up the name. This is a well understood system. By calling it by the typical name it should be easier for people to look into it understand it.

But so many people lack the ability to look into things and instead just listen to what politicians say.

But of course none of that matters these days. 😞

Sounds like a good incentive for them to implement the carbon capture they are so obsessed with.

I’m always confused by these criticisms, do I misunderstand how they work?

Reading this article, this 1.7million is an interest free loan, so taxpayers are only covering the lost potential of that money being used elsewhere, unless something happens whichs exempts them paying back.

For the various EV related plants, the majority of the subsidies are tax rebates. Which means the company needs to setup and actively operating in Canada such that they are making enough revenue in Canada that their paying enough taxes to be able to untalize any rebate. As Canadian taxpayers the tax revenue were missing is purely net-new revenue that wouldn’t exist if the company didn’t setup here. It’s not like we’re writing a blank check, we’re just saying that if they setup here and start making money, they can pay us less money for the first while.

Neither of those feel like obvious bad deals for Canadians. Am I missing something?

Ok I’ll bite. How does Canadian policy cause global inflation?

The only angle that I can think of is that we’ve had a larger impact on carbon production than most other countries, and at least when it comes to global food inflation, climate change is having a noticable impact. So one might be able to argue that our role in climate change is causing food inflation. But I doubt anyone has actually done any peer reviewed studies on that so it’s likely just assumptions at best.

CBC responded to this https://www.cbc.ca/news/editorsblog/editor-blog-gaza-breach-1.7189987

adding that she “generally” doesn’t attend flag raising events.

Feels like the most relevant part of the article.

This feels like unnecessary noise. Yes Shoppers Drug Mart, like corner stores, sell food at a large markup. They’ve always done this, they know that if you’re picking up food there you’re willing to pay a convenience markup.

Shifting any focus here gives Loblaws a potential out by just reducing prices at shoppers, which has nothing to do with what we actually want to happen.

What?

What projections are you looking at? It is a few cherry picked ones? Generally the projections going back to the 80s are in line with what’s actually happening, if anything they were optimistic.

Even if you don’t agree with projection or that we’re actually in-line with them, the correlation between carbon in the atmosphere and global temperature isn’t disputable anymore.

Good? 140$ per night for a hotel room is roughly what I would have expected, it’s not like this government (or the Conservatives) would ever consider building and operating their own housing, so this is the only option…

I imagine the problem here is that we need more government workers hired to process asylum seekers, but once again would we expect the Conservative government (the one that has been on and off criticising the number federal workers we have) to actually hire more people to fix that?

I’m so tired of reading these low effort “news” pieces

Don’t forget you only get taxed extra if you realize all those earnings in the same year. So not only do you need to make more than 250k you also need to have a reason to take it out all at once rather than a little bit each year as you typically would if it were retirement income or something along those lines.

It started good, but then started to fall into typical conservative taking points.

He correctly identified that the problem started when Canada sold off crown corporations, but then attributed the problem to over regulation of these newly private cooperation.

Somehow he also called CBC a monopoly in there, which is a wild jump.

My main take away from this video is the best solution is to deregulate (the other points were “increase competition”, but at this point that’s like politians saying they will create more nurses or doctors, unless you also state a plan I assume you’re just blowing smoke). His argument for how deregulating airlines or banking or ISPs would make things better for us didn’t really exist.

Regulations might make it hard to start a new bank, so I’ll give him that. But I have a hard time seeing how regulations is what’s preventing new ISPs or grocery stores from cropping up.

Overall in my opinion it’s a captivating video that lacks any substance, which is typical for politicans, but also disappointing because you don’t often get to hear them talk about something for over 10 minutes where they actually do have time to explain a plan properly.

If they could somehow make this data available to search engines. Maybe we can start being able to google random problems and actually find solutions again.

It’s been a month since they manage to get a first phase of a pharmacare bill passed.

It’s frustrating seeing conservative followers claim the the current government is lying to them based only on the lies they are hearing from conservative leaders.

Is no one capable of fact checking what they hear? It’s exhausting hearing the same bogus statements over and over and over.

… Did you read what I posted?

Yes there is a carbon pricing program, that was never up for debate. I pay it too (and get more back than I pay in).

And yes portions of provinces have been mislead because they seem to have no ability to actually validate what they hear on the news. You’re a perfect example of that. You’re clearly really angry, but the things you’re angry about aren’t actually true.

I’m assuming you’ve heard things said by the media, or conservative polititions and you just accepted it as fact and it made you angry. Which was their plan. The whole conservative strategy these days is to mislead their base, create division and make people angry. They don’t have any substantial solutions for anything, but that’s also ok because their base have been trained to not question anything they hear.

I highly highly encourage you question everything you hear in the media. Official sources (like canada.ca) are trustworthy, but you can also go even deeper and find actual bills. You can work yourself out of the hole you’re in, it’ll just take time, and you’ll have to put in effort. I the current conservative controlled media landscape it takes constant effort to get real facts about things.

Do you have anything to actually prove any of that is lies?

I’ve given you substantial evidence that what you’re saying isn’t true. And you’re just responding with “lies” as if that somehow invalidates the factual evidence I’ve given you.

You need to either read this new information, learn something new and admit that what you were saying before isn’t true. Or you need to provide proof that what you’re saying is backed up by reputable sources.

You hear it all the time because it’s how the system works.

This page has more details that will be useful for you:

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/pricing-pollution-how-it-will-work.html

There are also links at the bottom of the page to more details.

If you don’t trust it because it’s a Canada.ca address, then I think your best bet is to go read the actual bill, I’m not going to find that for you, but you’re going to have to but in some effort, you’ve been mislead (which is fine it happens) but then you’ve decided to start spreading that same misinformation, that isn’t ok. It isn’t that hard to be an informed citizen today, but a big part of that is not trusting everything you hear on the news.

Give this a read.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/pricing-pollution-how-it-will-work.html

Every province have a carbon pricing model, how did you miss that?

Provinces had the option to build their own system, or use one provided by the feds.

Judging from your other comments you have some very large fundamental misunderstandings of how the system works. I think you need to take a good hard look at where you’ve been getting your information, someone is lying to you and you’re falling for it.

You’re so close. So very close.

If company A uses gas, they have to pay a little more carbon tax, and that extra costs end up in the final product.

But lucky for you! Company B also exists, they crunched the numbers and found that over the life of their vehicle it is actually cheaper to use EVs, in their case their end product is a little cheaper than what Company A could provide.

Then you go to the store and you see option A and B, you see B is cheaper and you buy it.

The carbon pricing model has now worked exactly as economists have been saying for decades.